• CHEF-KOCH
    link
    -5
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    I am afraid this is incorrect open source has massive funding issue. The reality vs what you theoretically could do are different things, usually only bigger projects getting lots of funding and donations.

    The web is also basically just one big ad. Yt, lemmy, everyone practical only advocates and advertise a website, link, info whatever. So yes you need actual solutions, getting rid of ads and replace it with donations never works. Starts here with the fact that people copy and paste entire paywalled content on the website because they refuse to support websites just because they want money for the content. People want everything free and not help, always was the case and always will be the case because its too easy to bypass systems.

    • @Whom
      link
      7
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I’m not saying donation is a replacement for that revenue, I shouldn’t have even mentioned it. We don’t need donations either. There does not need to be a stream of money coming in to make putting html online worthwhile.

      You’re too stuck in the mindset of the current web. We do NOT need to bend further to those trying to make money off the web.

      • CHEF-KOCH
        link
        -5
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        Wishful thinking does not win a price, if it would be up to be I would declare monopiles illegal establish world piece in a blink but this is not realistic.

        Reality is that people tend to take open source, never donate, and that is it, when the project dies because no one supports it, they go to the next project and the process repeats itself. Only bigger projects without real competition getting attention and funding.

        How many bloggers and smaller projects went broke because no one helped, instead you see … oh f#ck it I bypass your paywall, adblock you to death to ensure you never dare again that you make some buck on my behalf. This is what people really think. There are exceptions but typically people trying to enforce their own believes and opinions on others and this reflects funding. Oh you use ads, f-u not on my watch friend … and this is what people actually do in the real world.

        For example I cannot sponsor lemmy monthly as they do not accept BAT system as donation option and I find it complicated to setup bitcoin to do that, so I let it go. Its that simple, I have no bad intention but for me its more effort and more complicated so I let it go, does not mean I have no good faith or I am not willingly to help when I can, so I help spreading the word but overall when it comes to money people consider twice to support you or not.

        Even bigger pages like new york times are forced to go with paywalls because they slowly dying because lack of support, how f#ed up is that. Open web, starts with funding. Otherwise you only help those who have enough money to sit it out, which is google, or in that example google news and why should people help randoms that bleed to death, because they end up anyway on the same big pages once the competition is gone.

        THere are three solutions

        • Coin system
        • Ads - Paywall, traditional ad revenue etc.
        • Merch and funding … merch to pretend you give something in return to animate people to help and let them feel more comfy…

        … and that is pretty much it, one time donations, well sure, can happen but you need to pay your bills monthly.

        • @Whom
          link
          32 years ago

          It’s not wishful thinking. People still host websites for the sake of doing it and never intend to make any money. They will continue to do so, even as the dominant model of the web has shifted. It is not wishful thinking or too idealistic. It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.

          None of those “solutions” you propose are necessary. Forget about replacing ad revenue: let it all burn.

          • krolden
            link
            42 years ago

            None of those “solutions” you propose are necessary. Forget about replacing ad revenue: let it all burn.

            This, entirely

          • CHEF-KOCH
            link
            -52 years ago

            Those examples are rare examples and are not the standard. Even Martin Brinkman with 150k+ clicks a day had to gave up and sell his page. You cannot pay your bills with hopes and dreams and you cannot expect someone to produce lots of articles when no one supports you.

            It already exists and has as long as the web has been around.

            Yop, some pages no one heard of it, or pages with 1 post per year like Stallman.org or what. In meantime Google news spits out 100 news a second that actually impact the web and not your 10 clicks a day page.

            Totally from another planet dude, cringe. Had to laugh at your bs…

            • @Whom
              link
              4
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              I know they are rare and irrelevant. The point is we don’t have to cater to the standard or what’s popular. We don’t have to cater to those trying to pay the bills with the web. The web does not have to be a revenue stream. If all that’s left is irrelevant pages no one cares about, so be it.

              You keep responding as if I’m saying we can continue the current model of the web by simply removing ads and replacing them with nothing. I’m not. I’m saying the web as it is should burn.

              And don’t call me “dude”.

              • CHEF-KOCH
                link
                -42 years ago

                So you say we should give up on independent journalism and only let bots on Google news post important infos. I mention Google news to provoke because Mozilla has no own news network that comes close. I am not even telling something new here, the own community came up with ideas for social networks, email systems, news systems - not pocket btw, vpn systems, etc pp. Things Google successfully established. There are also drawbacks like Google+ but you cannot always win. You need to know when its best to review you options and cut things when they become a burden.

                I’m saying the web as it is should burn.

                … impressive solution…

                • @Whom
                  link
                  32 years ago

                  Why are you just pivoting into “Mozilla bad” and summarizing Google projects? What are you even talking about?

                  And yes, the web should burn. If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.

                  • CHEF-KOCH
                    link
                    -5
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    If it cannot exist without squeezing money out of people and generally being abusive, it should not exist.

                    Wishful thinking, this would be in a Star Trek world, believe me I also want such a world too but reality is people are selfish, egoistic, ignorant and god knows what… The whole NFT thing showed us clearly, to name one example … this is what the web cares about … not idealism or good faith and wishes…

                    Lets assume you are disabled, your only option is to make money over the web … what then … so your logic here cannot be applied, you want that this person starves to death rather than make some cash or what …

                    Everything has downsides, always…

            • krolden
              link
              22 years ago

              OK then by your logic then how is Lemmy functioning without ad revenue?

              Furthermore why are youusing a platform without ads if you like ads so much? Go back to reddit.

    • krolden
      link
      22 years ago

      It worked for ~20 years before ad banners became a thing.